version 0.2: April 17, 2012
April 10, 2012
Total attendance: 14
Total attendance: 15
|Since 75% of the ME EC's voting members were present,
that EC was quorate for
Since 75% of the SE/EE EC's voting members were present, that EC was quorate for this meeting
In the light of Samsung's non-attendance during the roll-call - they did join the meeting later - Patrick led a discussion of the process to be followed when a member loses their seat due to non-attendance. (If Samsung had missed this meeting it would have been the fifth in a row, thereby triggering the new rule specifying that "Missing five meetings in a row, or missing more than two-thirds of all meetings in any consecutive twelve-month period, results in loss of EC membership.")
After initial suggestions that non-attendees be encouraged to provide an explanation and to request that the penalty be waived, members agreed that the PMO should simply inform the member that the loss of membership rule had been triggered, and leave it to the member's discretion to decide whether to appeal for a waiver. Don Deutsch pointed out, and Scott Jameson concurred, that asking EC members to vote on the validity of other members' participation in the EC could be legally problematic. Mike DeNicola pointed out that the Standing Rules state that waivers should be granted only in exceptional circumstances, and suggested that since Samsung's long-term attendance record was very poor these would not constitute exceptional circumstances.
Members agreed that since the Standing Rules do not specifically define the amount of time that members must attend a meeting in order to be counted as present, Samsung would be counted as present if they joined the meeting later.
Samsung did join later, and were consequently counted as present.
Patrick noted that there were no recent personnel changes to report.
Heather Vancura delivered the EC stats presentation. Werner Keil reported that the Spec Leads for JSR 357: Social Media API, which was voted down by the EC, did not intend to resubmit their proposal at this time.
Aguinaldo Boquimpani and Bruno Souza presented the plans for the May face-to-face meeting in Sao Paulo (see presentation) and responded to a number of logistical questions (about hotels, local transportation, and other matters) from EC members.
Due to a shortage of time, Patrick agreed to discuss this topic offline with Ben Evans and Bruno Souza.
Patrick briefly presented the current status of JSR 355, reporting that things are going very well (see presentation.) He reported that the JSR is currently in Early Draft Review, and noted that he did not expect any significant comments because there is consensus within the ECs as to the approach to be taken, and because the changes to the Process Document and Standing Rules are minor. He presented a more accelerated schedule for the JSR, suggesting that it could be completed well before the October elections.
Members reviewed the list of proposed items for discussion in JCP.next.3. Patrick suggested that it would be helpful if we could identify "themes" for this JSR, in the way we had identified transparency, participation, and agility for JSR 348.
John Rizzo pointed out that licensing was one obvious theme. He suggested that we should use the term "consistency in licensing" rather than "standardized licenses." Others agreed that this terminology would be preferable.
Patrick suggested that transparency, and in particular ensuring that the JSPA and any other relevant documents (Oracle's "standard" licenses, the SCSL, and others) are consistent with the new requirements introduced in JSR 348, should be another theme. [Agreement] Rob Glidden asked how "transparency" is defined. Patrick responded that we have defined the term in the Process Document.
Other suggested themes were:
Scott Stark suggested that we review the relationship between OpenJDK and the JCP. Patrick responded that although this is an interesting topic it might be out of scope for this JSR. He suggested that Mike Milinkovich and Scott Stark lead a discussion on this topic during the Brazil f2f meeting and that he would then ask Don Smith, the Oracle employee responsible for OpenJDK community liaison to join us for further discussion at a later EC meeting.
Rob Glidden noted that while Java is required in all GINGA specifications there is considerable resistance to this. Patrick asked whether Aguinldo could provide an explanation of these issues at the Brazil meeting - preferably before or during our JCP.next.3 discussion - so we can decide whether there is anything we need to address in this area. Aguinaldo agreed to do so.
Mike DeNicola noted that we have no formal policy for the resolution of disputes where there is disagreement over how the JSPA should be interpreted. He suggested that we might want to define an arbitration process. Steve Wolfe responded that he wasn't sure this was a good idea. Scott Jameson asked for information about areas in which Oracle would be unwilling to make concessions, since discussing changes that could not be implemented in practice would be a waste of time. Don Deutsch responded that he and Patrick are working this issue within Oracle, and would let EC members know as soon as possible if there are any areas that Oracle considered "off limits" due to legal action or for other reasons.
Patrick responded that it would also be helpful to learn if other major players on the EC had similar "red lines." Scott agreed, but noted that "some are more equal than others."